Multiverse Design Challenge: Recent Activity
| Multiverse Design Challenge: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| All challenges | Upcoming Challenges | Make a new design challenge! | All challenges (text) |
Recent updates to Multiverse Design Challenge: (Generated at 2025-05-18 17:57:14)
it's definitely white. savages don't own battleships
Also I have to point out that this design is either red or green, and not white.
Is there any benefit to riding a ship?
So to be clear:
If I attack with a savage creature, and you have a creature, you can't block.
If I attack with a savage creature, and you have two creatures, you can block with one of your creatures.
If I attack with 3 savage creatures, and you have five creatures, two of which are tapped, three creatures of your choice can't block, and you can block with the other two (which are presumably untapped).
That's not a terrible idea... but it isn't very different than "
: Target creature can't block." Personally, I think it would be kind of cool to see a tribe or a color go nuts with that mechanic some block.
It wasn't really what I was going for, though. It occurs to me that what I want is easy to explain, but hard to get a great wording. I went to explain what I wanted, ideally, stumbled upon the current reminder text, so I just put it there instead. That reminder text isn't perfect, since it isn't very exact... but I think it gets the idea across without mucking around with the details.
Why not have each savage knock out one defender, and let "Oh, three savages, three can't defend" work out the natural way?
Hmm... Thought of another way to write this that requires less words, but I don't know if it's too confusion or not:
"Savage (For each attacking savage creature, the defending player cannot block with that many creatures.)"
Well, the idea is that a small number of these would be balanced even if they're effectively unblockable. After all, shadow creatures from time spiral weren't a problem in constructed? But I agree it probably wouldn't work. (I considered letting the ships be attacked, but decided it was too complicated.)
"By the by, this Schooner can block land creatures and prevent the damage to itself"
Well, the idea was not so much "sea" and "land" as "50 foot long and made out of oak" and "not", so I did intend them to be able to block "normal" creatures (but I agree, that's more interactive but a lot more annoying than shadow).
{I was going to paste this as comment on a card I came up with for the challenge; but I flake out on that, so here it is}
I thought a game WAS a duel between two planes-walkers. (Heh, we could really confuse things, and have it be a duel between two planes-walker permanents.)
Pirate would be one of the creature types; reprint the classic Pirate Ship... and Pillage.
You've got bayou swamps and voodun
, coastal cities that get raided (and fight back) 
... not quite sure what 
gets mind you. This being magic; something ridiculous probably - wyverns?
You've got a return to the underwater part of the Fallen Empires underwater setting, and there's loads of pure ocean myth to tap into (though, frankly, Magic tapped a lot of that already)
Mechanics, mechanics... Raid. Raiding creatures attack lands? Better: Blockade. Blockaded lands can't be untapped, but some creatures can run blockades to untap them (or, you know, be druids and bypass the system by supplying them overland or something) and you can also break the blockade by, well, smashing the creatures.
Yes, I think I like this. The problem would be compressing the simple concept down to something that fits into reminder text.
Let's see. Blockade Runner (Instead of dealing combat damage to a player, you may choose to untap a blockaded land.)
Blockade (Instead of dealing combat damage to a player, you may choose to attach this creature to a land that player controls. While attached, that land does not untap as usual, and this creature may be attacked as though it were a plainswalker.)
Except that's a) too long and b) not capturing the idea of a group of creatures (and no, no banding no.)
Which is a damn shame. I guess I COULD make it fit on a land (coastal cities that contain the blockading rules) and have some other advantage? Meh. MEH I say.
Besides, I wanted a coastal fortification land that had
:Deal 2 damage to blockading creature.
So now I move to other ideas. "Seagoing" sounds like an obvious one. Work something like flying? Or like shadow? If the multiplayer-with-range variants were more common, it could usefully be "This creature may attack distant players"
So, what else? Pirates are famous for doing the whole "I'm so fearsome!" thing, but, well, intimidate captures that just fine.
Cannons? Pingers capture this just fine, and despite being the very first nicknamed ability ever has stubbornly resisted a keyword.
Oho! Here's one. "Shanghaid" The kings silver. All that good stuff. "Shanghai target creature" :) I hereby nominate that for the official name of creature theft. But, yeah, probably not a serious contender.
Other ideas I've thought about for this set:
(I really doubt any of these can be made into a mechanic, but take the idea if there's any you want to make :))
Edited:
Two more ideas:
Land ho, exactly the same as landfall... Hideaway, done in some less boring way, to represent hiding and recovering buried treasure...
I would be so upset if Wizards did pirates. I wasn't kidding about hating it.
Have you thought of making the duel between players, instead of between creatures?
I'm trying to think of a good mechanic for Duel keyword. Fight is exactly what you imagine Duel would do. So what else could Duel do?
That's easy to hand-wave away. If a face down permanent is attached to another permanent, then it must be an Enchantment - Aura with mark. You could even mix morph and mark in the same set without too much confusion (though I wouldn't), since you'd be able to tell which was which based on card orientation - just as long as people don't stack their morphers ontop of each other (which they shouldn't be doing anyway).
Outside of that, what don't you understand Link? The idea doesn't seem that different than morph... I'm not sure where the problem could be.
Added Mad Gertie's Shakes and Umchut Sharkclub. The more I think about this setting, the more I wonder why Wizards hasn't worked with it yet. There's so many flavor niches involved, that Wizards couldn't possibly hit all of them.
I don't understand this at all. Also, Mark doesn't work because all face-down permanents are creatures.
For Challenge # 074. My first thought was that we're clearly going to have the Pirate creature type in Pirate World. I mean, if Ninjas get a type in Kamigawa, then Pirates. Pirates should also have a keyword associated with them, like Ninjitsu, but I didn't want to make it deal with stealing stuff. This set is bound to have a lot of pirates, and that would get really nasty, really fast. So I started working on something that made Pirates fearsome and really good in large numbers.
Meanwhile, I knew that Green would somehow need to be represented in this set. Pirates can be Blue, Black and Red (strangely, I'd put them third in blue. The only thing tying pirates to blue is the sea, and stealing.) White can be privateer, some trade vessels and royal navies. What's green? Some pirates, perhaps, and some traders, maybe. But green also gives Magic a chance to really delve into Polynesian Myth and culture. Jungle Islands filled with deadly traps and fearsome sea warriors. I couldn't help making them Kithkin.
Savage makes sense for both Pirates and the Umchut, which means that much of this set may center on flooding the board with utility creatures by means of defense. I don't have a real problem with that... most Tribal sets do the same thing. My real problem is the length of this reminder text... I really like the math on Savage, but I can't seem to reduce the number of words below this. There's a mild "Triggers multiple times" problem, but (not counting MTGO) this solves itself when the defending player just declares the same 3 blockers 3 times. You could probably set a default in MTGO for Savage anyway.
For Challenge # 074, and making sure that Pirate World doesn't devolve into 'Ship World'. ;)
My reasoning behind making Mark is that a good pirate set should be filled with cursed artifacts. But most people don't want to play artifacts with negative effects in their deck. One of the nice things about Pirate World, however, is that it's bound to have a fair amount of permanent stealing, because... Pirates. Unless the set mechanics get in the way, I assume, at the very least, that Steal Artifact would be reprinted in this set.
So Mark is an attempt to get sneaky, and put a few curses on your own artifacts, watch your opponent steal them, then laugh in glee as you reveal that your mark was really a curse. It's the ideal scenario, though there's enough interactions going on with this card, that it should still be fun without the perfect setup.
You know, I like the concept (It reminds me a lot of how the original Star Wars CCG used to work: Combat in space didn't really affect combat on the ground and visa versa, but ignoring one or the other was bound to result in a game loss.) The real problem seems to stem from the fact that this can't really be supported outside of block. Inside block, it seems fun. Once the block is done... yeah, it becomes Spiritcraft, and people treat the set like Odyssey or Kamigawa. The cards don't make sense outside of their vacuum. Still fun in the vacuum, though.
By the by, this Schooner can block land creatures and prevent the damage to itself, like, let's say Hundroog. I assume that's a bug?
Oh yeah, I made Cannon Galleon for this challenge.
Also (((Smuggler's Skiff), a further riff from (((Cannon Galleon))). Although I'm not really sticking to two cards, one with a keyword, sorry...